ant-ivy-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen Haberman <step...@exigencecorp.com>
Subject Re: sources as conf or type
Date Fri, 30 Oct 2009 01:30:27 GMT



Niklas Matthies-2 wrote:
> 
> Yeah, but in the end it's just the same problem backwards, in that it
> really is an open-ended list. Maybe you actually need
> excludetype="source,javadoc,pdfmanual,debugsymbols" or whatever.
> 
> In any case, it's an interesting discussion, as both approaches have
> drawbacks, and it isn't perfect either way.
> 

Let me know if I'm misinterpreting here, but your main point seems to be
that using same conf with type=jar|source is not ideal because type is a
free form field and upstream projects could use different values. So you'd
need a convention.

Which is true. But isn't that already the same with the conf names?

E.g. you say "okay, what are our repo's conf names" and/or "okay, what are
our repo's type names" and once you've answered that, aren't separate-conf
or same-conf basically the same?

And if so, doesn't same-conf, with its simplification of transitive
dependencies (e.g. no dummy sources->sources to worry about), edge out a
win?

Nonetheless, I like that Ivy can do both, I would not want to change that.

What annoys me specifically is the maven pom->ivy working this way, and
giving me an ivy.xml file like:

http://sprunge.us/PgAa

Where I'll get the jetty source but not the jetty-util source because they
forgot the "sources->sources(*)" mapping.

Also specifically for pom->ivy translation, I don't think making up a new
sources conf makes sense, because the confs are primarily a mapping of
Maven's scopes:

http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-dependency-mechanism.html#Dependency_Scope

And so it would be more true to the original pom to leave out sources and
javadoc confs, put the source & javadoc artifacts in the master conf and use
type=jar|source|javadoc.

Yes, this is a convention, I just think its a better convention specifically
for maven pom->ivy translation.

Ideally I'd like to see this changed in the pom->ivy code...any chance of
that happening?

Thanks,
Stephen

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/sources-as-conf-or-type-tp26028446p26123692.html
Sent from the ivy-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message